Tai Preyor v. Lorie Davis, Director
704 F. App'x 331
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Taichin Preyor was convicted of capital murder in Texas (2005) and sentenced to death; state and federal habeas challenges failed and certiorari was denied.
- Preyor’s mother retained Philip Jefferson (disbarred) and Brandy Estelle; Estelle filed state and federal habeas petitions for Preyor, omitting a Wiggins ineffective-assistance-at-sentencing claim about mitigating evidence.
- After district court denial of federal habeas relief (2012) and appointment of new counsel (Sheard) in 2015, Preyor learned (through his mother) that Jefferson had been disbarred and allegedly orchestrated much of the representation.
- Ten days before a rescheduled 2017 execution date, Preyor filed a Rule 60 motion alleging fraud on the court (Rule 60(d)(3)) and extraordinary circumstances (Rule 60(b)(6)) to reopen habeas and pursue the omitted Wiggins claim; district court treated the motion as a successive habeas petition and denied relief and a stay.
- The Fifth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability (COA) and a stay, holding (1) the Rule 60 motion effectively sought to reopen the merits and therefore was a successive petition, and (2) alternatively Preyor failed to show fraud on the court, extraordinary circumstances, or timeliness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60 motion is a successive habeas petition | Motion attacked defects in prior habeas (fraud/inducement) not the merits; not a "claim" under §2244(b) | Motion seeks to reopen merits to raise new Wiggins claim; thus successive and requires authorization | Held: Not debatable that motion is successive; treated as unauthorized successive habeas and dismissed |
| Fraud on the court under Rule 60(d)(3) | Jefferson (disbarred) secretly orchestrated representation; Estelle concealed this, defiling court integrity | Alleged concealment did not amount to egregious misconduct (bribery/fabrication) or impair court’s ability to adjudicate | Held: No fraud on the court; allegations insufficiently egregious and did not prevent the court from performing its role |
| Extraordinary circumstances under Rule 60(b)(6) | Counsel fraudulently induced representation and abandonment, equitably warranting reopening (invoking Maples/Holland) | Evidence is limited (family affidavits); Preyor knew or could have discovered facts earlier; Maples/Holland inapplicable to Rule 60 context | Held: No extraordinary circumstances; claim untimely and unsupported by evidence |
| Stay of execution | Stay needed to allow adjudication of Rule 60 claims | Last-minute filing, lack of likelihood of success, prejudice to victim’s family and state interest | Held: Stay denied; Preyor failed strong showing of likelihood of success and motion was untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (rule 60 motions that attack merits are successive habeas)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (certificate of appealability standard)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (duty to investigate and present mitigating evidence)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (ineffective assistance of state habeas counsel may excuse procedural default)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (equitable tolling standard)
- Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266 (abandonment by counsel and procedural default)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (court’s inherent authority to protect integrity)
- Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (fraud that warrants setting aside judgment)
- Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 573 F.2d 1332 (fraud-on-the-court standard)
- Wilson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 873 F.2d 869 (fraud requires unconscionable plan undermining adjudication)
- Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759 (COA/merits guidance)